4.7 Article

Hydro Economic Asymmetries and Common-Pool Overdraft in Transboundary Aquifers

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022WR032136

关键词

groundwater; game theory; transboundary aquifer; coupled human-water systems

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. [ICER 1824951]
  3. [EAR 2142967]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The common-pool nature of groundwater resources leads to over-pumping. In transboundary aquifers, differences in economic and hydrogeologic conditions between users can either dampen or amplify incentives to over-pump. Combinations of different types of user asymmetry can enhance common-pool overdraft.
The common-pool nature of groundwater resources creates incentives to over pump that contribute to their rapid global depletion. In transboundary aquifers, users are separated by a territorial border and might face substantially different economic and hydrogeologic conditions that can alternatively dampen or amplify incentives to over pump. We develop a theoretical model that couples principles of game theory and groundwater flow to capture the combined effect of well locations and user asymmetries on pumping incentives. We find that heterogeneities across users (here referred to as asymmetries) in terms of either energy cost, groundwater profitability or aquifer response tend to dampen incentives to over pump. However, combinations of two or more types of asymmetry can substantially amplify common-pool overdraft, particularly when the same user simultaneously faces comparatively higher costs (or aquifer response) and profitability. We use this theoretical insight to interpret the emergence of the Disi agreement between Saudi Arabia and Jordan in association with the Disi-Amman water pipeline. By using bounded non-dimensional parameters to encode user asymmetries and groundwater connectivity, the theory provides a tractable generalized framework to understand the premature depletion of shared aquifers, whether transboundary or not.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据